U.S. immigration and nationality law firm dedicated to assisting people and companies from around the world with a unique international perspective.

Friday, June 21, 2013

Three Ways that Immigration Reform Could Fail to Pass

On Tuesday, June 11th, the U.S. Senate
voted overwhelmingly to begin debate on the comprehensive immigration reform
bill.The vote was 82-15.The lopsided procedural victory for the
bill's proponents is leading many to mistakenly believe that the enactment of
comprehensive immigration reform will be swift and assured. It will be
neither.In order for comprehensive
immigration reform to be enacted, both the Senate and the House of
Representatives would have to vote to approve it and the President sign
it.However, it is not as easy as it
appears.While it migrates through the
legislative process a bill as large as this one is often bombarded by proposed
amendments from all sides.Many
amendments are rejected.Others are
incorporated into the bill.The ones
added to the bill can either increase the bill's chances of passage by
recruiting new supporters or doom it by antagonizing old ones.Therefore, whether comprehensive immigration
is approved will depend on how the legislative proposal changes.

There are several ways that comprehensive
immigration reform could fail to pass.This blog will illustrate three scenarios, ranging from the least
probable to the most possible.The
first way that the effort to reform the immigration law could be derailed is if
the extreme left demands that the legislation include immigration benefits for
same-sex couples. While twelve states, along with the District of Columbia, have enacted same-sex
marriage laws, the federal government does not recognize such unions.The Defense of Marriage Act, notwithstanding
the present legal challenge at the U.S. Supreme Court, defines
marriage as solely between one man and one woman for all federal purposes.Including such a provision in the immigration
reform bill would be contrary to current federal law.Furthermore, while recent polls show that
just over half of all Americans now support same-sex marriage, it is unclear
whether the same amount of support would also extend to immigrants. Senator
Patrick Leahy of Vermont
previously offered an amendment to provide immigration benefits to gay and
lesbian couples when the bill was first being discussed in the Senate Judiciary
Committee, but withdrew it when it became clear that the amendment would hurt
the bill's chances of being brought to the Senate floor.Now, Senator Leahy has reintroduced his
amendment.Such a controversial change
to the bill could shave off enough support from the bill to prevent it from
receiving the necessary sixty votes to end debate and bring the bill
up for a decisive vote.

Another way that the
comprehensive immigration reform bill could be defeated is if the extreme right
includes an amendment that requires that unrealistic enforcement measures be
met before most of the bill takes effect. This could be in the form of a requirement
that the U.S.
spend an unconscionable amount of money to build and complete a border fence on
the U.S./Mexico border.While border security is an essential part of
any viable immigration reform proposal, it should not be used as a noose to
choke off other parts of the bills that are equally essential to the continual
economic well-being of this country. Another form of an unrealistic imposition is
the requirement that an alien prove that he has satisfied any tax
liability he may have incurred while being in the United States,
before being eligible for registered provisional immigrant status.While such a demand would make sense in
theory, in practice it would be disastrous.The individual who has been in the country in an undocumented status for
over fifteen years would have a nearly impossible time gathering the necessary
documents to satisfy this requirement.Furthermore, the IRS would be inundated with new filings, which would
increase the stress of its current overburden and inefficient structure, and it
would create the breeding ground for widespread fraud and error.Therefore, in light of this, including such a
provision to the immigration proposal would probably be enough to tip it to the
side of complete rejection.

Finally, the most probable
way that the comprehensive immigration reform bill could fail to pass would be
if the Senate approves its bill and the House of Representatives passes a
different version and the two houses of Congress fail to reach a compromise,
and therefore a bill would never reach the president’s desk for signature. However, if they did reach a compromise, the
resulting bill might not include the infamously misnamed “pathway to
citizenship”.Arguably the most controversial part of the
comprehensive immigration bill currently debated in the Senate is the plan to
put millions of undocumented immigrants on a long path to permanent
residency, which would then give them the option of later pursuing U.S.
citizenship.A successful conclusion to a difficult
negotiation between members of the House of Representatives and the Senate could
end up hinging on the inclusion or exclusion of what would be properly termed
as a “pathway to permanent residency”.The negotiators could ultimately decide that the other parts of the bill
are too important to risk losing in the face of opposition to the pathway to
permanent residency.They might agree,
instead, to allow the millions of eligible undocumented immigrants to remain in
the United States
in a temporary status which would be renewable and would allow them to work
legally in the country and to travel abroad.However, such a status would not, per
se, lead to permanent residency.The negotiators might consent to revisit the possibility
of those individuals being able to apply for permanent residency in the future.

Most individuals who wish to enter the United States
do not want to do so to live here permanently, at least not initially. He wants
to visit as a tourist, worker or student, and then return to his respective
home country. There is no sense of permanence in his mind. It is only after the
visitor is in the country and has accomplished his task, does the person
consider stability in his life in the United States in the form of U.S. permanent
residence. Finally, after acquiring residence will many of these immigrants
wish a true sense of "belonging" in this country in the form of U.S.
citizenship. Most individuals who would benefit from comprehensive immigration
reform are in the first level--they wish to work or study in the United States
without hindrance. Therefore, the vast majority would welcome a guest worker
program that would help make their dreams to come true.

If the
inclusion of a guest worker program is the best that can be done under the
current political climate, would immigrant groups support the bill, and allow
millions of undocumented immigrants to finally emerge from the shadows of
anonymity and be able to obtain some sort of legal status? Would they support the
process of finally providing real reform for our nation’s immigration laws in the
form of more work visas and faster immigration process?Or will these so-called advocates take a
myopic “all-or-nothing” approach and demand the bill’s defeat and the
continuation of the utter failure that is the status quo?

While the
comprehensive immigration reform bill enjoys a significant amount of support,
its enactment into law is far from a certainty.The three points mentioned above are probably
the greatest threats faced by real immigration reform. The coming months will be pivotal in determining if there will be real immigration reform.

The above information is provided for information purposes. It should not be construed as legal advice or the formation of an attorney/client relationship.